Fewest votes wins: plurality victories in 2024 primaries
Explore the report below, or download as a PDF.
Executive summary
A “plurality win” occurs when a candidate wins an election with less than 50% of votes. Most elections in the U.S. are “choose-one” contests in which a candidate can win even if the majority of voters voted for someone else. Plurality wins are a common occurrence in primary elections; they can send unpopular party nominees to general elections and allow a fraction of a fraction of voters to make decisions for the majority.
70 plurality winners advanced from the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and statewide primary elections in 2024. Many of these candidates were nominated in “safe” seats, where a primary win is nearly tantamount to being elected. 28 million people live in states or districts where a plurality winner advanced to an election that candidate is almost guaranteed to win, meaning those voters will be represented by someone who was effectively elected by a small portion of primary voters.
Other plurality winners are advancing to highly competitive toss-up races without a majority mandate from their own party’s voters. Research from Northwestern University and FairVote shows that these candidates are less likely to win than candidates with a majority mandate.
Ranked choice voting (RCV), a voting method that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference to produce a majority winner, is a proven solution that states should consider.
RCV is already used for primary elections in Maine, ensuring that nominees have broad support from primary voters. In Alaska, the top four vote-getters in an open primary advance to an RCV general election, which ensures both greater competition and a majority winner in November. Proposals to adopt RCV in primaries and general elections are on the ballot in Oregon and Washington, DC this year; proposals to adopt open primaries and RCV general elections are on the ballot in Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada.
The Fair Representation Act (FRA) is a federal solution that would implement RCV nationwide.
Introduction: defining a plurality winner
Majority rule is a common standard in democracies. If a minority faction sets policy, it raises the question of why that minority should have power instead of a different minority faction (or the majority faction, if there is one).
However, the U.S. is not actually governed by majority rule. Rather, most of our elections are determined by plurality rule, meaning whichever candidate gets the most votes wins (even when they do not earn a majority of votes). Many of us perceive our elections as majoritarian because in general elections, we often have a binary choice between one Republican and one Democrat. For one candidate to have more votes than the other, that candidate must have over 50% of the vote. However, if we add a third-party or independent candidate to the race, the winner does not necessarily need over 50% of votes to defeat the other two candidates. For example, if votes are split 34%, 33%, and 33%, the candidate with 34% wins, despite 66% of voters having voted for someone else.
Many general elections do not include an electable independent or third-party candidate, and therefore, many general-election candidates do win with majorities. This is partly because many potential third-party and independent candidates are hesitant to run, fearing they may “spoil” the race for an ideologically similar major-party candidate. Many voters are also hesitant to vote for a third-party candidate for fear of spoiling the race for their preferred major-party candidate and helping their least favorite candidate win.
However, primary elections often attract a larger number of competitors. As a result, primary elections allow votes to be split between many candidates, and for a candidate to win the nomination with a small plurality of votes.
In those cases, the candidate with the most votes may not represent the preferences of the primary electorate.
A look at plurality wins in the 2024 primaries
We followed every Democratic and Republican primary election for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and statewide office in 2024, and recorded every candidate who won a nomination with less than 50% of votes. The chart below shows all 70 of those candidates; a stand-alone version is also available here.
70 candidates won primaries with a plurality of votes. There are 62 races this November in which one or both nominees did not earn majority support from voters in their own party.
Among the 70 plurality winners, the average candidate won with 40% of the vote. This means that across these races, 60% of one party’s voters will be represented on the general election ballot by someone they did not vote for.
33 (47%) of these plurality winners won the dominant party’s primary (i.e. a Republican primary in a red district, or a Democratic primary in a blue district) and are all but guaranteed to win their general elections. Over 28 million people live in these jurisdictions, and will be represented by someone who has effectively been elected by a fraction of a fraction of voters.1
In 27 U.S. House races with partisan primaries, an incumbent chose to retire rather than seek re-election. In 17 of those seats (62%), the incumbent party’s nominee did not earn a majority of the primary vote. Retiring House members are being replaced with candidates who failed to appeal to a majority of their party’s primary voters, which may contribute to more polarized politics.2
In 2022, there were 120 candidates who won their primaries with a plurality. A significant factor driving the lower number of plurality winners in 2024 is likely the smaller number of statewide elections this year compared to the midterm cycle. For example, there were 36 gubernatorial elections in 2022, compared to only 11 in 2024.
How are this year’s plurality primary winners likely to fare in their general elections?
| Type of election | Number of nominees heavily favored to win | Number of nominees in competitive contests |
| Statewide | 11 | 2 |
| Congressional | 22 | 15 |
| Total | 33 | 17 |
Our findings offer a dim outlook for American democracy. While plurality winners are not unique to 2024 contests, the continual decline in the number of competitive seats makes them all the more concerning. Later, this report will point to a solution that can empower voters and deliver majority winners.
Safe seats and polarization
Plurality wins in congressional primary elections are consequential because primaries determine which candidates have the opportunity to compete in November, when the electorate is larger and tends to be more diverse. However, while the general election determines who will ultimately serve in Congress, 85% of House seats are safely Republican or Democratic; another 9% lean significantly toward one party.3 A candidate who wins a Democratic primary in a blue district is essentially guaranteed to win the general election, and the same for a Republican candidate in a red district.
If a candidate wins the dominant party’s primary with a plurality of votes, they have essentially won a seat by appealing to a small group of voters within an already small primary electorate. For example, Marlin Stutzman won the recent Republican primary for Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District with 19,507 votes (24.2% of the vote). As that district is safely Republican, Stutzman will go on to represent about 760,000 people without facing a competitive general election. He was essentially chosen by just 2.5% of people in the district.
Plurality wins in safe seats allow more polarizing candidates to take office. Of the eight hard-liners who voted to depose former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, six won their first primary with a plurality of the vote in heavily red districts. In other words, candidates elected by just a tiny fraction of their own districts held up all of Congress for weeks. With RCV primaries, elected officials would be accountable to a larger section of their party’s voters, which could lead to more consensus candidates and less polarized politics.
This problem extends beyond Congress to state governments. In West Virginia, Indiana, and Missouri, the Republican nominees for governor won their nominations with only a plurality of the vote, but are expected to handily win their November general elections in those deep-red states. In Delaware, the Democratic nominee for governor is similarly positioned. This means the most powerful officials in these states only have to appeal to a narrow slice of the electorate to win office.
Down-ballot races have the same problem. For example, in four of the five Missouri statewide offices up for election in 2024, the majority of Republican primary voters did not vote for the nominee.
In the secretary of state race, one of eight Republican candidates was Mike Carter, who had previously lost a primary for lieutenant governor in 2020 with 158,000 votes (26% of the total). This time, Carter observed that due to the crowded field, he didn’t need to compete for a large number of votes, saying: “If I have that same 158,000 votes this time for secretary of state, then I am the secretary of state.”4
Though Carter did not win, his benchmarks for a plurality victory proved astute. Denny Hoskins won the primary with only 157,000 votes, or just 24%.
A strategic mistake in competitive seats
It is not just safe seats where plurality wins in primaries are consequential. Recent research from Northwestern University and FairVote finds that plurality primary winners typically perform worse in competitive general elections than candidates who win the primary with a majority. The paper finds that plurality winners receive 1.47 percentage points less in general elections compared to majority winners, and are 11.3 percentage points less likely to win competitive general elections. When a party advances a plurality winner to a competitive general election, that party harms its chance of winning the race.
Across the 55 U.S. House seats that FairVote’s Monopoly Politics 2024 report projected as neither “Safe Democratic” nor “Safe Republican,” 13 (23%) have at least one major-party nominee5 who only received a plurality of votes in their primary. These swing seats could determine control of the House, but the plurality nominees are entering the general election at a disadvantage.
For example, consider Pennsylvania’s 7th District. Republicans are hoping to flip this swing seat held by incumbent Democrat Susan Wild. In the past two cycles, this seat has seen close margins, with Wild winning 52-48% in 2020 and 51-49% in 2022. In both of those elections, the Republican nominee was chosen by a majority of Republican primary voters. However, in 2024, the vote was split between three different candidates, with Ryan Mackenzie winning with 42% of the vote. The disadvantage Mackenzie faces as a result of failing to secure a majority may make the difference between defeat and victory.
Likewise, in Arizona’s 1st District, Democrats hope to unseat incumbent Republican David Schweikert. However, Democratic nominee Amish Shah only received 24% of the vote in his primary.
In total, 17 of the plurality primary winners (24%) are advancing to competitive general elections.6 This means that in 17 contests, a party may not have put its best foot forward in a potentially winnable race. A majority of that party’s voters have to vote for someone they did not want representing them on the general election ballot, or help the opposing party win.
Whether contributing to polarization in safe seats or weakening parties in competitive seats, our “fewest votes wins” elections are deeply problematic. However, there is a solution that has been implemented in dozens of jurisdictions across the country: ranked choice voting.
A solution: ranked choice voting in primary elections
Some states navigate the plurality winner problem by holding runoff elections when no candidate has a majority of votes. While runoff elections can deliver majority winners, they are expensive and lead to major declines in voter turnout. The average decline in turnout for runoff elections between 1994 and 2022 was 40% – a decline so large that runoff winners frequently have fewer votes than the leader in the initial round. There is, however, another way to deliver majority winners without asking voters to return to the ballot box: ranked choice voting (RCV).
RCV can be used to nominate or elect candidates for any type or level of office. Voters can rank the candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so forth. Voters’ first choices are counted, and if one candidate has over 50% of votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate has over 50%, an “instant runoff” is triggered. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and if you voted for that candidate, your vote now counts toward your next choice. This repeats until one candidate has a majority of votes.RCV has increasingly been used in primary elections. Maine voters have used RCV to nominate candidates for federal and state elections since 2018. Virginia Republicans used RCV in their 2021 nominating convention, and for some congressional primaries in 2020 and 2022.
This November, Oregon and Washington, DC have ballot measures to bring RCV to primaries.
When RCV is used in primaries, candidates must compete for broad support from the primary electorate, rather than get by on small pluralities. Nominees go into general elections with a strong mandate from their party’s voters. Parties put their best foot forward for November. RCV gives voters more say in outcomes, and meaningful choices between strong candidates.
Looking forward: The Fair Representation Act will transform primary elections
The Fair Representation Act (FRA) is a federal bill that would establish multi-winner congressional districts with RCV elections. With multi-member districts, several Republicans, Democrats, and others would compete in each district, and every House race would be competitive. This solves the issue of a small number of primary voters essentially deciding the outcome of most House races, since primaries would no longer decide who wins general elections.7
The FRA would also allow parties to nominate as many candidates as there are seats in a multi member district. This means they have more than one opportunity to identify the strongest candidate(s).
The FRA lets states decide how to conduct primary elections. Imagine a state that does not use RCV in primaries. With single-member districts, if a relatively unpopular candidate wins a party primary, that plurality winner offers the party its one chance to win the seat. With a five member district, the party could nominate five candidates. Even if that party still uses plurality voting in its primary, nominating the top five vote getters will advance a representative slate of party candidates to the general election.8 RCV in multi-member districts would then elect candidates in proportion to the share of votes earned by their party.
Conclusion
Plurality wins in primary elections are bad for parties, voters, and democracy. They allow a fraction of a fraction of voters to decide for the majority. Though many Americans are “used to” plurality voting, it is not baked into our founding documents or principles.9 Today, we have the power and momentum to implement ranked choice voting, a proven system that delivers fair and democratic results.
RCV can solve the plurality problem in primaries, sending strong nominees to general elections and giving voters better choices in November. The Fair Representation Act would go even further toward facilitating choice and fair outcomes.
References
1. This figure includes plurality winners in Congress or statewide offices like governor.
2. Not including early resignations or losses in primaries.
3. Monopoly Politics 2024. FairVote.
4. Politically Speaking, June 14, 2024, Starting at 5:00.
5. In Maryland’s 3rd District and Virginia’s 7th District, both the Democratic and Republican nominees are plurality winners.
6. Our determinations of “competitiveness” were based on FairVote’s Monopoly Politics 2024 report data for the U.S. House races and a combination of statewide partisanship and Cook Political Report ratings for other races. For methodological consistency, all statewide races within a state generally have the same prediction, though in reality, individual races may vary based on the candidates, incumbency, etc. This figure is higher than the 13 House elections mentioned earlier because it counts candidates instead of elections, and includes non-House elections as well.
7. For more information on the FRA and the “primary problem,” see here.
8. A “pick-one” primary with multiple winners is essentially a voting system called single non-transferable vote (SNTV), a special case of limited voting, which is a semi-proportional system.
9. For information about the history of plurality voting in America, see here.
